Well okay... never mind then. where is there a place to talk about pre-written scripts?

bosko

the internet

||cw

TheWarden: the poeple that wrote themmadclicker: by "the php pages" do you mean your code? debug itAdvocated`: XSS cleaning is more complex than escaping, just the basic idea is the same

madclicker

||cw, is there a debugger for linux?

||cw

madclicker: no idea

madclicker

k

||cw

madclicker: and debugging doens't usualy require a debugger, but it does require getting familar with the code

madclicker

||cw, :((Action) is not a coder

caffinated

madclicker: ZDE works in linux, and has debugging support

||cw

so disable magic quotes

Stormchaser

madclicker: echo, print_r or var_dump are usually ther best toolscaffinated: xdebug \o/

caffinated

actually, the best tool is a proper test suitebut nobody really does that when writing PHP code.

Stormchaser

I have to stop it... Someone might think, that I'm a programmer :)

||cw

hahahyeah right

Shaba1

Hello folkswhen I here read on a site that php needs to be compiled with some extension

caffinated

(Action) scans for legibility and finds none

Shaba1

does that mean I need the actual source code and libs for php and the extension ad a C compiler?

mattmcc

Not necessarily.

Shaba1

how so mattmcc

||cw

Shaba1: depends on the extention

Shaba1

To me it seems I just need the extension files and then to put ---with--whatever extention

mattmcc

Shaba1: Well, it depends. Many common extensions are available as packages themselves.

Shaba1

in php.ini

||cw

and how you installed php

mattmcc

Even those that aren't can be compiled on their own using phpize.

Shaba1

I mean everytime I read that( and I read a LOT of php tutorial) and it says compileI am thinking I need a C compiler.I have one and two different front ends for it.

mattmcc

Yeah, apparently it's a widely held misconception.

Shaba1

but I would rather not

mattmcc

It depends a lot on the extension, the nature of a PHP installation, etc.

Shaba1

It would be nice if the authors could come up with a better wordlike say "plugin"

mattmcc

To replace extension? I don't see much of a semantic improvement there.

||cw

Shaba1: the basic idea is that once you install from packages you are no longer supported by the official install docs. tut's are going to stick witht he offical install docs and so they say compile. but you packages were compiiled, so you just have to see if the extention is availableShaba1: and doing --with-foo for /everything/ leads to a large php binary and longer load times

jplibre

extension plugin module include-file

Qube

StormChaser ?

||cw

--with-foo=shared is better

Qube

got held up with a phone call

jplibre

"that thing you add into the main thingy"

Qube

Stormchaser, ||cw : http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=35770"Don't use "&id=" as a parameter in your URLs, as we don't include these pages in our index."part of the "webmaster guidelines" area

mattmcc

Isn't that nice of google to encourage people to use better URL practices.

Qube

they re-orged the site, but it has been that way for years (see internet archive for proof)

mattmcc

Although what posesses them to think foo?id=N is any worse for their uses than foo/N is beyond me.

||cw

Qube: what about ?id= ?

Qube

||cw, conversation from 30 mins ago

||cw

Qube: the guidelien says &id=, not ?id=, is there a difference to them

mattmcc

I'd be pretty scared if google indexed one, but not the other.Since they're functionally identical.

Qube

well, from the url perspective, there is a difference - underneith there isn't, but I would like to fight google on it

caffinated: I'm not convinced of that.caffinated: The only thing that suggests that to be the case is the contents of the left-hand nav.

Stormchaser

Qube: Well... that's ain't quite true, either: http://www.google.com/search?hs=xOr&hl=en&lr=&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=%26id%3D10&btnG=Search and the last entry on first site

caffinated

mattmcc: which is the heading for it all

Qube

Stormchaser, s/site/page ?still - it has a n/a page rank

Stormchaser

hm? Results 1 - 10 of about 16 for &id=10. (0.35 seconds) <-- that looks like reasonable number to me

Qube

do any have a page rank?

caffinated

mattmcc: if google doesn't crawl those pages, why can i find so many on google?

Stormchaser

Qube: I cannot know that, since I don't use google bar.... But does that change anything?

Qube

regardless - only 16 results for &id=10 kinda proves that google doesn't try to index them